PC or MAC?

[Thomas Micklewright]

mac if you can afford it - they are fantastic!

[Loulou]

I go with Mac

LL

[SteveT]

I started with a Mac and now I'm with PC.

The dell pc I have is faster than any mac I ever had and I used to buy their top of the range model every few years.

Filemaker is the software I use most so I transferred that to my dell.

[tog_in_sox]

Hey DW,

Further advice is all dependent on your budget. Are you able to buy brand new or considering 2nd hand?

Building a new site won't be a problem on most average PCs, worst comes to worst you might add a little extra memory or upgrade the graphics card. What kind of content do you envisage for your site? Does your work require you to edit or produce colour critical imagery, whether photos or digital artwork?

Are you just upgrading your PC processor unit or do you need to replace the screen too?

Let us know more precisely what your circumstances are and we'll be able to give you more steer. Some of the PC bods here might even be able to build you something.

[dullwitch]

Thanks Tog-in-sox,

I'm not sure about budget, as I don't know what I can get for my money, but I'm guessing around ?1000/1500. I'd prefer to buy new.

I'm a hair and make-up artist so my website needs a decent gallery, but I'm not fussed about having flash etc. I'm fairly satisfied with my current website apart form the gallery.

I'd like to upgrade everything. The screen I have is fine, but it would be nice to upgrade all, if the budget allows.

Generally the pc will be used for internet access, family use, downloading photos etc, editting the odd short video, nothing too special. The only other thing would be my website. What are the best/easiest web building programmes out there now? I have no idea. All I know is dreamweaver and frontpage.

I appreciate your help here. It's such a mindfield!

[*Bob*]

From what you've just described, you're a Mac-owner in waiting - with cash to buy.

Website in iWeb - piece of cake

Movies in iMovie - piece of cake

Photos in iPhoto - there's a theme running here..

Didn't look as to whether you wanted desktop or laptop but you could afford either.. take your pick.

[mockney piers]

Or buy a quad core Dell studio XPS with a lovely screen for about ?750.

[*Bob*]

Indeedy.

The best bet, if you're unfamiliar with Macs, would be to go and use one for a few hours somewhere (shop, friend etc) and see if you like them. I do, but not everyone does (my brother didn't, and so I acquired a relatively new iBook, free of charge)

I don't really have a choice as to whether I work on a Mac or not, but if I did, I'd still choose one for all those basic homely I-things people I'd want to do without needing to get too technical.

[karter]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Or buy a quad core Dell studio XPS with a lovely

> screen for about ?750.

Now you are talkng. (tu)

[mockney piers]

"The best bet, if you're unfamiliar with Macs, would be to go and use one for a few hours somewhere" == Spot on.

I give the same advice when people ask about camera recommendations. The market is so tight and competitive these days that for me it boils down to how you get on with the interface. I'd struggle to switch from Canon to Nikon even if it was the best deal in the world because Canons are completely second nature to me now.

I think the same goes for computers. Give them a go and see which you get on with. I can't really do MACs because the nerdy MS developer in me needs to know exactly what's going on under the covers the whole time and there's just too much abstraction for me, but I understand for most people who just want to get something done, whatever it be, then that's probably a dream situation.

[dullwitch]

Quadcore? I've heard of this, but have no idea what it means.

When I bought my last pc, Pentium 4 was what I had to look for. Is Quadcore the new Pentium 4?? :-$

[mockney piers]

Dual core and quad core mean having effectively 2 and four processors in your computer respectively. Fairly recent advances meant that it was possible, faster and of course cheaper to put independent cores on the one physical chip rather than have multiple [processors as such, for which their was a brief trend.

I think it still holds true that laptops cant currently support more than dual core technology, probably because of heat issues, though that's a guess.

The modern equivalent of Pentium 4, once Intel's flagship chip (flagchip?) is the iCorex series, i think the iCore3 is the top one, then 5 then 7; I think there may be a couple of chips with the Pentium brand still hanging around.

But there are other processor manufacturers out there who have long since closed the gap, AMD being probably the most famous.

Did any of that make any sense?

[kenty26]

If you go into a currys or pc world Apple now have their stores inside a store and should be able to go through helping you make the switch from pc to mac one on one so would be a good place to give one a go.

Also don't forget that macs hold their value much better than PCs because you get regular free software updates, you don't have to keep any software CDs for printers or cameras because they just plug in and go, and you don't have to buy any anti virus software ever. No anti virus software saves you ?40-?50 a year so if you keep it for another 8 years the overall cost is pretty much the same.

[Huguenot]

Buyers should be reminded that there aren't 'no' viruses for Macs, just very few.

The reason there aren't many is because Macs don't have a large market share, so virus writers would prefer to aim at bigger markets.

This is a situation that won't stay the same if Macs gain in popularity.

Apple don't like people to know that, so they can be surreptitious in trying to sustain the myth:

"Two weeks ago, Apple released an update to Mac OS X Snow Leopard (version 10.6.4), but failed to note that it included new antivirus protections that guarded against the HellRTS Trojan. The Trojan is disguised as an iPhoto update to trick Mac users into installing the malware that allows hackers to surreptitiously take remote control of Macs"

Which only goes to show that dastardly crims are starting to turn their sights on the Mac

[bigdavid]

Huguenot - apologies to contradict, but there are no viruses for the Mac. (well one - known as Leap-A was was created in a lab environment)

There is malware, and there are trojans, but there are no viruses. On a Mac, the first 2 require a level of social engineering to be installed (as in your example the user is "tricked" into installing an update) and require a user to enter an administrator password to install. A virus, by definition, is self propagating and self installing. In the Windows world this is possible as executable code can self install, access things like address books and self propagate via email.

The market share argument does not stack up. Macs are based on unix. All major corporate and banking server environments run unix, and if someone wanted to write a high impact virus they would write one for unix. But they can't, so they don't.

Your Mac is vulnerable, but only if you install things (including entering an administrator password) from dubious sources.

D.

[Huguenot]

Good points David, but I don't think the OP was sophisticated enough to differentiate between viruses and trojans.

I also think that saying 'Leap-A was was created in a lab environment' is really relevant, people don't argue about where a virus came from, just that they've got it. Leap-A proves they can be done, and others will follow.

Similarly OSX/Inqtana.A may be a 'worm', but I don't think your average consumer can tell the difference, and it's a proof of concept.

I think the 'tricked' thing is also a red herring, the Mac's trying to get off on a technicality.

Given that people still respond to 419 scams, I don't think the requirement for an 'administrator' password isn't going to be a particularly big hurdle.

[tog_in_sox]

?1000 - 1500 is a heck of a lot to have going spare for a home computer in these times.

Horsepower-wise your requirements don't warrant much more than a mid-range beastie which you could then enhance with more working memory (RAM) to get the most from the processor it has, 4GB would be a good start.

As you'll see from the Apple website you can happily spend all your budget for something of this order on their low-mid end offerings. I hadn't realised just how much their component hardware is the same as PCs. Ultimately if you content yourself that you can get along with the MAC software and interface you could lash out for the conventionally accepted stylishness of a MAC.

IF you are on a budget and happy to have a computer that's different from all your media pals (style victims ;P) then as suggested above you could get something perfectly suitable for under ?800 including screen.

Residual/resale value on a computer is largely irrelevant as most ordinary people will likely keep it until it dies. Personally if I were a non-techie I wouldn't buy a secondhand computer unless it was dirt cheap and I was desperate for one as you just don't know how badly it's been treated. I'd be looking to get something with a good warranty and after-sales service attached, which means that it'd likely have to be a better known brand bought with extended warranty as most others only give a year return-to-base.

Are you editting your own image files for printing for your portfolio? If so then you'll be after a pro quality screen which could be substituted in for ?2-300 more. If not then you could stick with your old one or spend on a good quality new one that'd probably be brighter, more vivid and larger than your current one.

It's probably time to have a conversation to answer a whole gammut of questions on preferences, requirements and possible developments to see how much you really need to spend.

PM me if you fancy a chat. ;-)